Local resident submissions to the Leicestershire County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from local residents.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Ros Aldwinckle
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Having lived in oadby for almost all my life and watched it change dramatically I do not see why the area I live in should be linked with wigston. Surely Oadby could simply split into two parts with two councillors leaving wigston out of it. That way we would be represented truly locally. I for one object to the new proposed boundary change but agree to less councillors being needed.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6247 02/12/2015
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name:
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I fully object to this going ahead. We bought a property in Syston as Syston is where we wanted to live. If we had wanted to live in thurmaston we would have done so and also would have got a property in that area cheaper. With this change if will affect my family expenditure due to insurance payments etc. Please take note in looking at the current thurmaston area in making it better and having it being busier with the additional 5000 homes being built soon. This is unfair on residents and the change doesn't need to take place. Thanks
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6551 08/01/2016 The Review Officer (Leicestershire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP
9.1.16
Dear Mr D.Owen,
Having studied your literature on the boundary review of Leicestershire County Divisions, we would like you to add our objection to your proposal of including the South part of Syston in the Thurmaston Ridgmere Divison.
We would like to base our argument around your notes that states, ‘This part of Syston is contiguous with, and of similar character to, the part of Thurmaston Parish also served by Melton Road’.
We would like to draw your attention to the following considerations, which we feel contradict this reasoning. We hope to use statements from your own criteria to justify our arguments.
1. Identifiable Boundaries- In your statement you say that major roads form well know barriers between communities. With regards to Melton Road, it forms 5 well known distinctive barriers, at Suburban Rearsby, Queniborough, Syston, Thurmaston and Leicester City which the communities of Leicestershire are very familiar with. Each part has its own well defined characteristics and therefore, the South part of Syston of Melton Road, does not have a similar character to Thurmaston. Furthermore, Thurmaston part is recommended for regeneration by the Borough Council, due to the negative impact after the By Pass was built, which divides the Thurmaston Community.
2. Legislation 2 regarding the estimated changes in the number of distribution of electors likely to take place of a five year period from the date of our final recommendation.- The Borough Council have given planning approval for the building of 3,500 houses, rising to 4,500 based on their Core Strategy. This will add a significant amount of electors in the intended Thurmaston Ridgemere ward. Therefore your proposal to add approx. 206 houses will have no significant effect on the distribution of electors.
This development is also identifying a relief road cutting Thurmaston and Syston after Simpson Close through the fields of Roundhill Academy. If your proposed changes occur, this will cut off the South part of Syston from Thurmaston and isolating it from the rest of Syston. This will have a detrimental effect, similar to when the By Pass was built in Thurmaston.
3. Facilities– Your criteria states that the location of public facilities can represent the centre point of a community. –The centre points of Syston are: the fantastic medical centre, the South Charnwood Leisure Centre, the key supermarkets: Coop, Tesco and Aldi, religious establishments and its vibrant Town centre. The people of Syston identify with these facilities more than the purpose built shopping centre in Thurmaston. The shops in Syston provide a sense of community spirit. Many residents from the South of Syston have been resident here for a considerable length of time and many have moved from Thurmaston to Syston, to enjoy the Syston facilities and have a distinctive way of life.
4. Community groups-The residents of this part of Syston are very heavily involved in many community organisations. Many of them are key leaders of the community and belong to establish groups for many years’ e.g. Church groups, Bowling Club, football and cricket clubs, The Syston Carnival, Syston Christmas Fayre, Syston in Bloom, the Patients’ Forum for Syston Medical centre and many more. These residents would like to continue fully with their activities in Syston as they have done for many years.
5. Parish Boundaries- In areas where parishes exist, the parish boundaries often represent the extent of a community. In fact, the Commission often uses parishes as the building blocks of wards and electoral divisions. A further statement, states that we are required to divide it into parishes wards, so that each parish ward is wholly contained in a county division. - Your present proposal is dividing this part of the parish into the Thurmaston Ridgmere, County division which is against the above statement. Whereas we should be fully in Syston Fosse or Syston Ridgeway as a community.
In conclusion, your statement says, ’we are currently inviting local people and organisation to tell us where they think new electoral division boundaries should be drawn across Leicestershire.’
We am requesting you to reconsider your draft proposal to keep to the original boundary division and leave this minor portion of Syston, where it belongs in true Syston.
Yours sincerely,
Mr M.H.Asmal, Mrs K.Asmal, Mr A.Asmal and Mr A.I.Asmal
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Mary Bell
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Oadby has always been separate from Wigston and South Wigston.All three feel they have an individual unique identity.The bus service provides poor links between the three,libraries are separate,the Swimming pools,the churches and in particular the shopping centres.We have come to know our own councillors over the years.We have our own Rugby and Football clubs and grounds.Leave us as we are.It works well as it is.Oadbys boundary is with Harborough on one side,Leicester on another and Wigston the other.our population has expanded greatly since I came in the 1970s.Just give us the number of councillors relevant to our population not our physical size.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6405 22/12/2015 Owen, David
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 16 December 2015 13:56 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Leicestershire County Council Boundaries in the Borough of Melton Mowbray
From: Graham Bett Sent: 16 December 2015 10:33 To: reviews
Dear Sir
Leicestershire County Council Boundaries in the Borough of Melton Mowbray
I have looked carefully at the Commission’s proposals for Melton and feel very strongly that they represent the best possible Division Boundaries for the Town and Borough. This is because the Commission’s recommendations: Ensure, as far as reasonably possible, equality of representation, in terms of number of voters; Recognise the interests, identities and needs of both our urban and rural communities, including the need for the recognisable community of Melton Town to be suitably represented; Promote effective and convenient local government by creating divisions that are an appropriate size – they are easily manageable in terms of representation, and have clear understandable and logical boundaries.
Melton Town does not have a Town Council and depends upon its Borough and County elected representatives to consider its particular interests, opportunities and challenges. Similarly, rural communities value representation from those with a strong commitment and understanding of their interests. I believe the effective representation of both rural and urban communities is best served by the current proposals for an East and a West Division within the Town Boundary.
By creating the East and the West Divisions within the Melton Town Boundary, based on current Town Ward boundaries, the community identification of people living and working in the town is strengthened.
An advantage of mainly keeping to the Melton Borough Council Ward boundaries is that it facilitates good governance through liaison between County and Borough Councillors.
Thank you for taking my views into consideration.
Kind Regards
Graham Bett
1
2 Owen, David
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 December 2015 10:05 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Oadby & Wigston Boundary Proposal
From: HAZEL BEVINS Sent: 03 December 2015 09:59 To: reviews
Good Morning
After reading information from my local council, I would like to record my objection to new boundary proposals, as I don't believe changes would have any real benefit to any of the communites affected and could indeed be detrimental.
Yours Hazel Bevins
1
Owen, David
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 04 January 2016 13:25 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Boundary reviews Syston Leicestershire
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: JULIE BLACK Sent: 04 January 2016 13:23 To: reviews
F.A.O the review officer
It has recently come to our attention via our local parish councillor of the intention of The Local Government Boundary Commission for England and Wales to be reviewing the boundary where I live. As a Syston resident born and bred and resident of my present home, , for over 18 years I am very distressed about this proposal. It looks as if my house falls in the ward which will make us part of Thurmaston, I bought my house in Syston because that is where I wanted to live and paid more for it due to its location.....Thurmaston not being as desirable. By moving the boundaries our properties will be worth a lot less . I cannot stress highly enough how angry myself and fellow neighbours are about this proposal and do not intend to take it lying down !!!! I will also be contacting our local MP to ask for help in our fight to keep our homes in Syston as they rightly should be.
Yours faithfully, Julie Black
1
Owen, David
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 January 2016 12:18 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Proposed boundary change to Thurmaston Ridgemere
From: Gary Brewin Sent: 11 January 2016 11:41 To: reviews
Dear Sir/ Madam
We are writing to object to the LGBCE's proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere boundary change, to in the southern part of the parish of Syston.
I personally have lived in Syston most of my life and my partner and I have lived at for over 4 years and consider ourselves to be Syston residents, linked with the Syston community and facilities, we are passionately opposed to any attempts to make our residence part of Thurmaston.
As Syston residents , we strongly believe our vote’s should contribute to affecting the issues in our local community which is Syston not Thurmaston
We feel most strongly against the proposal for the following reasons;-
1)
The proposal states "This part of Syston is contiguous with and of similar character to, the part of Thurmaston parish also served by Melton Road "
I would argue at this part of Syston is not contiguous with Thurmaston but is in fact contiguous with Syston. There is a piece of un-developed green space between the two area that clearly separates them. is linked directly to Syston and only a short walk to the Syston town centre. Walking to Thurmaston village involves using a footbridge to cross over the busy A46 at the Asda roundabout, meaning the majority of facilities in Thurmaston are only accessible from Syston by car.
2)
1 My children got to school in Syston. My partner and I are registered at the Syston health centre and Syston dental practice. We frequent regular the Syston shops , pubs and restaurants allowing us to help Syston economy. We exercise our dog in Syston parks, We use the Charnwood Leisure centre in Syston, and travel from Syston railway station. We very, very rarely use any facilities in Thurmaston so feel it is vital that we have a vote in the future of Syston not Thurmaston.
3) We feel there is a clear identifiable boundary between Syston and Thurmaston in the form of busy road junctions such as the where the Melton Road meets the Fosse way and a little further on Barkby Lane.
We would be most grateful if our comments could be shared with relevant parties and be taken strongly into consideration, alongside those of many of our local residents affected with equally strong feels as laid out above.
Yours Sincerely
Gary Brewin & Janet Brayshay
2
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Alan Carter
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Delivering electoral equality for local voters – the data supporting the proposals for Oadby increase the differential in electoral equality rather than normalise the ratios compared with the present situation (currently 3% below, proposed to be 7% and 9%). This therefore goes against the criterion for electoral equality and my wife and I therefore urge retention of the current arrangements. Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities –the proposals for Oadby split the currently clear delineation of this community based around the commercial centre of the Parade, with its common access to transport, namely the X3, 31 and 31A bus routes and the A6 which provide a central spine and at the same time a local estate-based means of public transport. Splitting Oadby along the A6 which is the basis for both private and public transport seems to ignore the common interests of the residents on either side of the A6. Oadby and Wigston are traditionally separate and different communities and again this proposal seems to ignore and cut through the very clear delineations between the two areas. The boundary between Oadby and Wigston is very clear, being based on the race course area, commercial centres, places of worship and transport corridors and provision. In particular, Oadby's interest is in the A6, Wigston's in the Welford Road and members for the proposed Oadby South and Wigston East ward could have conflicting priorities as a result of this. My wife and I therefore submit that this proposal also fails to meet the criterion of maintaining local ties and ensuring that boundaries are easily identifiable. Provision of effective and convenient local government - we see no potential for improving the activities or efficiency of the County Council through these changes.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6501 05/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Bhavna Chauhan
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am raising my concerns as a resident of the southern part of and we as a family are completely opposed to the unnecessary changes and impact this may have on us to being part of the Thurmaston ward. 1. We moved to Syston and we have paid a premium on the house price for being in Syston and the prestige of living in Syston, as apposed to Thursmaston. - We feel this will have a negative impact on our house price being in Thurmaston. 2. The council have failed to provide directly any information or consultation to residenst affected, prior to the close of the consultation period. 3. The council has not taken into account the massive impact of the NW housing development from Hamilton to Thurmaston and there is not need to a change of boundary for moving southern part of Syston to Thurmaston Ridgemere. 4. The character/charm of this part of Southern Syston truely represents Syston and not Thurmaston. The public entering Syston see a noticeable difference as they enter Southern Syston from the Asda roundabout and have for a very long time associated it with Syston and not Thurmaston. There is a marked difference from the Roundhill School that 'you have entered Syston'. 5. Both the Syston and Thurmaston Parish council have written and unanimously voted and are opposed to this change to place this part of Syston into Thurmaston ward. 6. Statistical evidence exist that placing us into the Thurmaston Ridgemere will have fundamental effect/impact on may of the services and financial implication (ie House prices, Insurance, Surgeries, School choices etc..) We want to stay as part of Syston. This is an unnecessary proposed change and without solid foundation and support. We hope you take all these points into account and the strong feeling felt around this change.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6493 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Hemma Chauhan
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am raising my concerns as a resident of the southern part of and we as a family are completely opposed to the unnecessary changes and impact this may have on us to being part of the Thurmaston ward. 1. We moved to Syston and we have paid a premium on the house price for being in Syston and the prestige of living in Syston, as apposed to Thurmaston. - We feel this will have a negative impact on our house price being in Thurmaston. 2. The council have failed to provide directly any information or consultation to residents affected, prior to the close of the consultation period. 3. The council has not taken into account the massive impact of the NW housing development from Hamilton to Thurmaston and there is not need to a change of boundary for moving southern part of Syston to Thurmaston Ridgemere. 4. The character/charm of this part of Southern Syston truely represents Syston and not Thurmaston. The public entering Syston see a noticeable difference as they enter Southern Syston from the Asda roundabout and have for a very long time associated it with Syston and not Thurmaston. There is a marked difference from the Roundhill School that 'you have entered Syston'. 5. Both the Syston and Thurmaston Parish council have written and unanimously voted and are opposed to this change to place this part of Syston into Thurmaston ward. 6. Statistical evidence exist that placing us into the Thurmaston Ridgemere will have fundamental effect/impact on many of the services and financial implication (ie House prices, Insurance, Surgeries, School choices etc..) We want to stay as part of Syston. This is an unnecessary proposed change and without solid foundation and support. Our whole street along with many of our surrounding streets agree with these points. Syston has been my home for my entire life, and I would like it to remain my home. It's unnecessary for these changes to occur when they cause so many more issues. I don't think the council has thought about the implications to residents, let alone notified the residents. I feel that the council doesn't have it's residents best interests in mind. We hope you take all these points into account and the strong feeling felt around this change.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6494 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: H Chauhan
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: residents
Comment text:
We the resident of Syston object to the proposed electoral boundary will be mean parts of south Syston will be moved into Thurmaston wards. Attached is a letter with signatures/addresses of all the residents of and the grounds on why we are all apposed to this unnecessary change. We are also not sure why each resident that is affected have not been consulted at all, by the council well in advance of the consultation period.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6492 04/01/2016
Owen, David
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 04 January 2016 09:37 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Review Feedback/Comment
From: Mark Cherry Sent: 29 December 2015 06:35 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write in relation to the proposed change in Syston boundaries, Thurmaston Ridgemere ED Syston Ridgemere ED and
I can see why the new areas are being created, however . The proposed changes includes us in the Thurmaston Ridgemere area.
On this side of the Melton Road we are far from being part 'Thurmaston'. Between us and any residential or occupied land is a playing field, empty land, the A46, Costco and a Bus Depot on this side of the Melton Road. Therefore the new Thurmaston Ridgmere boundary including not only looks odd on the map, but in reality puts in a solitary island within the new area.
I would like to suggest you maintain the existing boundary line and adopt that as the edge of Thurmaston Ridgemere up to the Melton Road edge.
Regards,
Mark
1
10-Jan-2016
The Review Officer (Leicestershire) LGBCE 14th Floor, Milbank Tower LONDON SW1 4QP
LGBCE Consultation on draft recommendations for Leicestershire Proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Division
I am writing to express my concern at the proposals to move part of the boundary of the existing Leicestershire County Council division of Syston Fosse into the proposed new division of Thurmaston Ridgemere. It is my view that the inclusion of the small southern part of Syston Parish which covers approximately 250 dwellings should be reconsidered. This area is not contiguous with and of similar character to Thurmaston and elected County Council representation should reflect this difference.
Syston and Thurmaston are viewed by all who live there as two very distinct and separate communities, each with its own identity. This includes a village/town centre, primary and secondary schools/academies, health provision, shops and local sports & recreation facilities which both communities regard as their individual local/community resources.
The two areas are separated by a wedge of, as yet, undeveloped land. There are proposals to build a new road across the current dividing green wedge in order to support transport access to the additional 3500 to 4500 new homes that are likely to be built between Thurmaston, Barkby and Barkby Thorpe over the next few years. This, in my opinion would only serve to isolate the small number of homes in Syston from the rest of the Thurmaston Ridgemere Division and makes it far more appropriate for them to be represented by a County Councillor with an interest in Syston.
There are very clear breaks between these two communities in terms of transport links – both public transport and existing highways. One of the boundaries between the current Leicestershire County Council District of Syston Fosse and Syston Ridgeway is the London St Pancras to Sheffield main railway line. It is my view that this should remain the boundary line. Syston Ridgeway currently includes the small rural villages of Barkby, Barkby Thorpe, Beeby and South Croxton which it is proposed are also moved into the new Thurmaston Ridgeway division.
While this isn’t something that LGBCE can necessarily take fully into account I feel you should be aware that there is a strong concern amongst residents that this proposal could be the “thin end of the wedge”. Once these dwellings were moved into “Thurmaston” for County Council electoral purposes it is feared there would be an increased risk of this happening again when there is a review of Town/Parish Council ward boundaries or Borough Council (Charnwood) Wards. I would be grateful if these points could be taken into consideration by the LGBCE when the decisions are made regarding the final boundaries and that the new Districts will continue to reflect the clear distinction between Syston and Thurmaston and the residents of Melton Road, The Meadway, Barkby Lane, Wilkes Way and Clover Way in Syston form part of the new Syston Ridgeway district for County Council electoral boundary purposes.
Yours sincerely,
Elaine Constable
Owen, David
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 December 2015 13:10 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Oadby
From Sent: 01 December 2015 12:49 To: reviews
The current boundary arrangement works perfectly well !!
It is a retrograde step to divide Oadby as proposed.
John Coy
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: sally cunningham
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Croft has no connection whatsoever with Aston Flamville or Elmsthorpe. It has much closer links to Narborough, Broughton Astley and Cosby, with footpaths and busroutes linking to those villages. The local library, doctors and dentists are in these areas, not Stoney Stanton or Sapcote. I know of nobody in our village who has work or family in these places but plenty who have in Narborough, Cosby and Broughton. Burbage or even Barwell have closer connections with Elmsthorpe and Aston, so should be linked to them.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6559 08/01/2016
I might also add ‐ that this was all being proposed without properly informing the people that it directly affects! We only found out about this from a local councillor from the neighbouring electoral district who was objecting.
I think it is utterly disgusting that the first we heard of the whole process was 2 weeks before the closure of the consultation. It was as if the so called "independent" Local Government Boundary Commission wanted to have the whole process sewn up before any of the people it directly affected were able to voice their opinion.
This is absolutely undemocratic.
Thank ryou fo your consideration of these matters and I eagerly await your response.
Best regards,
Sarah Deacon and Duncan Forbes
2
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: John Doyle
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The fit of Rothley and Mountsorrel as a combined electoral area at County Council level is good, however there is an illogical division at both Borough and Parliamentary levels where Mountsorrel is split between Mountsorrel and Mountsorrel Castle wards with the latter combining with Quorn at Borough levels and between the Parliamentary seats of Loughborough and the Villages and Charnwood. This creates an impression of divide and conquer being inflicted upon the villagers of Mountsorrel and a diminution of the ability for a "whole village" voice to be heard at all levels of local and parliamentary government. The statement in the proposals that "We looked to improve this level of electoral equality and considered that the Mountsorrel North End area, which we propose to include in our Quorn & Barrow division, has sufficiently good access and links to that area." is refuted strongly, whilst infrastructure communication my be good, they are equally so with Rothley and there is far more social, economic and cultural ties between Rothley and Mountsorrel than there is to Quorn. The Quorn linkage needs to be broken to permit true democratic representation for Mountsorrel as a whole entity.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6453 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Brian East
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Wigston East and Oadby South sounds better How many millions are we spending on a totally pointless scheme
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6382 17/12/2015 Boundary review of Leicestershire County Divisions – proposed inclusion of a part of Syston in the Thurmaston Ridgemere Division
I (Auzra Flynn) am writing to you as a resident of the above area. I disagree with the proposal as above.
Why I disagree:
Communication Links – the residents relate to Syston Town and its local community.
1. There are a vast number of community groups (approx. 40) that residents participate in as they identify with the community of Syston, eg Sports clubs; WI; rotary club; churches; flower club; chess club etc. Many of us local people are members of these and we identify ourselves as being part of Syston’s community. 2. This has fostered strong community spirit throughout the years and there are many informal communication networks in place as a result of families historically being based within the town. 3. The residents relate and rely on Syston Town Council for its updates. We use mainly their amenities/facilities. My family would not think of going into Thurmaston for these as they are not part of our local area. 4. As this would be an electoral boundary change it is important to note that most of us know little about Thurmaston and its politicians. We would be clueless.
Facilities – in terms of facilities there are a very good amount of these.
1. Some of which are the Syston health Centre (my family & I have been part of one of the practices for over 10 yrs now); local businesses; South Charnwood Leisure Centre (my children undertake their swimming here & my husband & I are gym members); local train station (I use this to commute to work everyday); several local parks ( used by my family – small kids); vets (we took our hamster to a local vet when she was unwell); dentists (my family are signed with a local practice); opticians; schools and many other local businesses (we use the shoe store; jewellers; butchers; fruit & veg shop; co-op/tesco; charity shops; local chippy and other local businesses). 2. These are all utilised by the community you are proposing to place within the above Division as they are the most local to us. 3. Statistically it is well known that local people do not travel far to utilise certain facilities and this is the case for the people living in the area you are proposing to place with the other division. They are utilised because they are our local town centre, eg Syston Town. As the businesses are next to one another we tend to go from one to the other in terms of our shopping habits.
Boundary Changes
Some of the boundary changes proposed draw a line straight down communities, eg Fosse Way. Melton Road is the spine of Syston and runs straight through our community. Drawing lines in the proposals for electoral boundary reasons will not take away from the strong community identity that exists for us. Syston & Thurmaston both have very distinct and different identities and characters, and regard themselves as distinct and separate places, with the residents of this part of Syston identifying themselves strongly with only Syston. Transport Links between the two areas
The roads are good between the villages, however, bus routes are not. Buses come along Melton Rd (& a small part of Thurmaston). It is not easy to move around by this means and there is no train station in Thurmaston. The easiest mode of transport between the two is via car.
Boundary Changes Group As a result of this proposal the residents affected by the area have come together as a group. Many of us already know one another as neighbours and I am one of the Directors on my estate. There are a number of Councillors and business owners who live in the affected area; and their links are with the local community in that they represent our interests and we utilise some of their businesses.
I hope that you will take my views and that of others onboard.
Auzra Flynn 10 January 2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Darren Gartside
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I disagree with your proposal for the creation of a "Thurmaston Ridgemere" electoral division. Whilst equality of number of electors per division may be improved for administrative reasons, there will be no benefit to community identity or provision of effective and convenient local government. Thurmaston has an active parish council with excellent first tier local government services and a strong sense of community identity with many vibrant community groups. At present, parish council, borough council ward, and county council division are coterminous, which goes some way to reducing the confusion of having three tiers of local government providing services in one community. I feel that community understanding and engagement with local government would be detrimentally affected were you to include part of Syston, Barkby, Barkby Thorpe, and South Croxton (each with strong community identities of their own) within a "Thurmaton Ridgemere" division. Thurmaston is essentially sub-urban / urban in character. Syston is a town. Barkby, Barkby Thorpe and South Croxton are all rural. Presumably the aspirations of each community, and their expectations from local government will differ significantly. Please respect the history, growing population, community identity and character of Thurmaston and retain a single member division for Thurmaston, with boundaries coterminous to the parish council and borough council ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6482 04/01/2016 Owen, David
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 12 January 2016 08:57 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Boundary changes and the creation of Thurmaston Ridgmere.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Rianna Gokani Sent: 11 January 2016 20:59 To: reviews
Dear Review Officer for LGBCE
Re: Boundary changes and the creation of Thurmaston Ridgmere.
We were very disappointed to receive some information re changes to boundaries in our area from one of our Parish Councillor's and can not believe that we were not informed or consulted directly about the changes proposed for our house to be part of Thurmaston Ridgmere.
As a resident of Syston, we disagree with this proposal of putting our house in the new ward and our property being added to the New electoral register of Thurmaston Ridgmere.
We bought our house in Syston because we wanted to live in Syston. There were lots of other properties available at a cheaper price elsewhere but we choose Syston for a family home.
You will be well aware that statistical data regarding the following: house prices, insurance, doctors surgeries, school choice etc. is based on the Electoral register. Putting us in Thurmaston Ridgmere ward will have fundamental effect on many of these services at effect our family.
You have not taken into account the big development of 5000 houses being built in Thurmaston, which then will undermine your need for improvement for electoral equality in this division.
Your sentence regarding 'This part of Syston being contiguous with and of similar character to the part of Thurmaston Parish.' Is totally incorrect. We would like you to visit this part of Syston and find out for yourselves and not base you fact totally on statistical data.
The Thurmaston Parish Council have written to you, clearly stating that they do not wish this part of Syston to be put into Thurmaston.
Syston Parish Council in their recent Full council meeting have unanimously voted to support Thurmaston Parish Council and agree with the fact that the proposed part of Syston should stay in Syston and not Thurmaston.
We would like you to take the above into consideration and keep our house in Syston, where we have always lived and where are children go to school and where we feel a part of the Syston community.
Yours faithfully
A vert angry resident Shonal Gokani 1
Review Officer (Leicestershire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Mill Bank London SW1P 4QP
5th January 2016
Dear Sir,
Re: Electoral Review of Leicestershire. Proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Ward
I would like to submit my objection to a specific part of the proposed changes to the southern part of the existing Syston boundary.
You have stated that “This part of Syston is contiguous with and of a similar character to the part of Thurmaston Parish also served by Melton Road.”
This is not so, as an examination on the ground would show. There is a world of difference in character and history. I have lived here for over 40 years, twelve of those as a Town Councillor, and can affirm the support and involvement of people in this area for Syston affairs.
I understand and support your objective of equalising voter numbers, just not in this particular unique and well integrated part of Syston.
Numbers in the Thurmaston Ridgemere area will be increasing enormously in the next few years, with agreed new housing of 3,500 rising to 4,500. It would be sensible to take account of this in proposals for the future boundaries. There is no need to take a few extra from Syston at this time.
In addition, there is a new road included in the huge Thurmaston development, which will cross the Melton Road at exactly the position of the present Syston southern boundary. This will further emphasise the current demarcation between Syston and Thurmaston, which I would ask you to preserve.
Yours faithfully,
A T Greatorex
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Sarah Hill
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I do not agree with the fiddling about of Harborough East division, which results from the Billesdon / Keyham moves between Gartree and Laundry divisions. East, Thorpe and West Langton have no affiliation to Harborough East. This is essentially an urban division (albeit a Market town), Great Bowden is closely linked, in terms of history and social links. Schools for, example, are in different local groupings between the two areas. It would seem perverse to make Harborough West less rural in content whilst at the same time making Harborough East more rural. They are both essentially town Divisions, which Gartree and Launde are not. These changes appear to be more to do with making the numbers look pretty than what communities exist. Please return to the original proposals from Leicestershire County Council.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6520 06/01/2016 Mr & Mrs R J Issitt
8th January 2016
LGBCE 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
FAO The review officer
Dear Sir,
We and our fellow neighbours have been informed that there is a proposed boundary change that affects Syston/Thurmaston, Leicestershire.
Our property, which we have lived in for over 30 years will come under the proposed changes and will no longer be in the Syston Ward but in Thurmaston Ridgemere.
We have studied the map and can see no logic in the new proposed boundary on the Melton Road from Fosseway to halfway up the Melton Road toward Syston town.
Surely the obvious natural boundary is straight up the Melton Road and turning right at The Firs, or probably even further up, rather than the very strange zig zag boundary now proposed.
My husband and I have very strong objections to the proposal for numerous reasons. Initially it will alter our post code and put us in a higher risk area for insurance purposes, all amenities will change in line with Thurmaston and when we purchased our property we paid a premium amount for the privilege of living in Syston and not Thurmaston and feel extremely angry that bureaucrats sitting in offices in London can make these sort of decisions about our homes and lives.
My husband and I are strongly opposed to this proposal and are happy to support any decision against it.
Yours faithfully,
Karen and Roger Issitt Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Kashmiro Kaur
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am raising my concerns as a resident of the southern part of Syston and we as a family are completely opposed to the unnecessary changes and impact this may have on us to being part of the Thurmaston ward. 1. We moved to Syston and we have paid a premium on the house price for being in Syston and the prestige of living in Syston, as apposed to Thurmaston. - We feel this will have a negative impact on our house price being in Thurmaston. 2. The council have failed to provide directly any information or consultation to residenst affected, prior to the close of the consultation period. 3. The council has not taken into account the massive impact of the NW housing development from Hamilton to Thurmaston and there is not need to a change of boundary for moving southern part of Syston to Thurmaston Ridgemere. 4. The character/charm of this part of Southern Syston truely represents Syston and not Thurmaston. The public entering Syston see a noticeable difference as they enter Southern Syston from the Asda roundabout and have for a very long time associated it with Syston and not Thurmaston. There is a marked difference from the Roundhill School that 'you have entered Syston'. 5. Both the Syston and Thurmaston Parish council have written and unanimously voted and are opposed to this change to place this part of Syston into Thurmaston ward. 6. Statistical evidence exist that placing us into the Thurmaston Ridgemere will have fundamental effect/impact on many of the services and financial implication (ie House prices, Insurance, Surgeries, School choices etc..) We want to stay as part of Syston. This is an unnecessary proposed change and without solid foundation and support. We hope you take all these points into account and the strong feeling felt around this change.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6518 06/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Leicestershire County
Personal Details:
Name: Jerry Kerlin
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I understand that I am going to be moved into Thurmaston. The carving upon the area is unbelievable and complicated. Its seems that have just been cut out of the Syston area. It makes no sense. We are part of the Syston community, we are part of Syston Village and do not to want to become part of Thurmaston. Please can you rethink these proposals.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6508 05/01/2016